PERM - Labor Certification

Rather than requiring that the full survey methodology be submitted with every prevailing wage request, can DOL recognize that certain surveys (i.e., Towers Watson, Radford, CHIPS One) employ a statistically valid methodology, and only require documentation that supports the specific wage request, such as the wage, level, location, and job description for the requested job opportunity?

Applicants have reported frequent rejections of alternate wage surveys that have been submitted to the prevailing wage unit in support of the ETA 9141. Several of these rejections have not been due to a specific deficiency of the survey or because the survey was not a match to the position, but because not all leveling information was submitted, or because the submitted survey data was incomplete. Rather than rejecting the survey due to missing survey information, could the National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) instead issue a request for the missing information, so that employers are able to correct the problem, rather than have to submit a new wage request and wait two months for a decision?

Recently, DOL has begun to issue audits with the following language: “The foreign worker listed on the ETA 9089 resides in [residence location], section H of the 9089 provides [work location] as the worksite. Has DOL explained how the foreign worker performs the job duties of the job opportunity given the distance between [residence location] and [work location].Is the employee permitted and/or expected to perform the duties of the job opportunity listed on ETA 9089 from his residence and/or his place of choosing?” In many cases, the two locations are quite close and are clearly within a normal commuting distance (e.g. Atlanta and Marietta,
Georgia – distance approximately 20 miles; Palisades Park and Parsippany, New Jersey – distance approximately 30 miles). In one case, the work and residence locations were less than two miles apart. Has DOL considered conducting an initial review of the distance between the residence location and work location before issuing the audit?

Applicants often have difficulty getting a response from the various email help desks (sr.processing@dol.gov, plc.atlanta@dol.gov, etc.) beyond a boilerplate acknowledgement of the inquiry. This lack of substantive response can be particularly challenging when an employer is trying to create a new PERM filing account, or if the employer’s contact is locked out of their online PERM account. Has DOL provided any details on how e-mail inquiries are handled by each of the help desks? Does DOL have required service response times? Would it be possible for a dedicated e-mail to be created to follow-up on specific matters, such as PERM account registration problems? As an example, USCIS has a dedicated follow-up e-mail for service requests, but this e-mail can only be used after a service request is made, and after a set period of time goes by without a response.

Several people have reported receiving two certifications of the same PERM application, with different validity dates. In most (but not all) of these cases, when the case was first approved, no hard copy ETA 9089 was received by the attorney in the mail. When the case was “recertified,” a hard copy 9089 was generated. Has DOL identified what caused these duplicate approvals? Has DOL also communicated this problem to USCIS, as this could impact processing of an I-140 petition that was filed with a request that USCIS contact DOL to obtain a “duplicate” certification?

Employers may choose to withdraw cases undergoing SR for many reasons, such as the employee terminating his employment, the employee obtaining a green card through other means (such as marriage), or the costs of the required recruitment. In determining any employer-wide consequences of withdrawal during the SR process, does DOL consider the explanation as to why the SR case is being withdrawn? How can an employer best provide an explanation why the SR case is being withdrawn?

Several newspapers (Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, etc.) place their online ads on Monster.com. When the SR instructions direct the placement of an ad on these newspaper websites AND on Monster.com, this means placement of the same listing twice on the same website, which is redundant. Has DOL indicated that a single advertisement on Monster.com is sufficient when the required newspaper uses Monster.com to place job advertisements online?

DOL has indicated that it would make sense to consolidate recruitment for Supervised Recruitment (SR) cases that are identical. Has DOL made any progress on publishing a standard that can be followed to consolidate recruitment for SR?